Rivian spins out a new micromobility startup called Also with $105M from Eclipse

I still think this whole enterprise is just a way to separate VCs from their money. I'm sure prototypes exist, and they may even sell some, but mainly its a way to spend a bunch of VC money on management and engineers. I will be amazed if the company survives long enough to sell more than a handful of the things.

Its also worth noting that this is in no sense a legal ebike. Every legal definition I'm aware of in the US requires that the pedals actually allow propulsion of the bike. For example, Virginias definition is:
"Electric power-assisted bicycle" means a vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground and is equipped with (i) pedals that allow propulsion by human power, (ii) a seat for the use of the rider, and (iii) an electric motor with an input of no more than 750 watts.

This is basically an electric motorcycle with a pedal operated range extender, since the pedals are not actually connected to the drivetrain in any way.
 
I still think this whole enterprise is just a way to separate VCs from their money. I'm sure prototypes exist, and they may even sell some, but mainly its a way to spend a bunch of VC money on management and engineers. I will be amazed if the company survives long enough to sell more than a handful of the things.

Its also worth noting that this is in no sense a legal ebike. Every legal definition I'm aware of in the US requires that the pedals actually allow propulsion of the bike. For example, Virginias definition is:


This is basically an electric motorcycle with a pedal operated range extender, since the pedals are not actually connected to the drivetrain in any way.
Agree with all of that. But I see little evidence that the California definition of a legal ebike (similar to many other state definitions) has any impact on what's sold as an "ebike" in coastal SoCal.

For example, "Class 3" ebikes with throttles everywhere, and no shortage of Surrons and Super73s on the streets and bikeways. The e-motorcycles are usually ridden by kids obviously too young to have a driver's license.

Until they start cracking down on manufacturers and dealers who blatantly (and knowingly) break the ebike laws, the legal definition won't matter.
 
Last edited:
Agree with all of that. But I see little evidence that the California definition of a legal ebike (similar to many other state definitions) has any impact on what's sold as an "ebike" in coastal SoCal.

For example, "Class 3" ebikes with throttles everywhere, and no shortage of Surrons and Super73s on the streets and bikeways. The e-motorcycles are usually ridden by kids obviously too young to have a driver's license.

Until they start cracking down on manufacturers and dealers who blatantly break the law, the legal definition won't matter.

True, but the market for those bikes isn't going to want this thing. I'm not sure who the target market would actually be (well, its VCs, but if they actually intended on selling them I'm not sure who the target market would be). The battery is physically small so is unlikely to actually store much power. Its a hub motor with all the drawbacks that entails. I'm sure it will be expensive if it ever actually hits the market. Everything is proprietary. For all their marketing fluff, every step of "pedal a generator, pass that power to the hub motor" entails power losses, so its efficiency won't be good compared to an ebike that is adding power to a traditional bike drivetrain. The purported advantages (its hard to steal! Its low maintenance!) are IMO fairly transparent bullshit.

Guess we will see. I obviously have my doubts. :p
 
Back